Techniques of Data Collection: The Procedure of Data Collection for Conducting a Research through Observation & Interview

Techniques of Data Collection The Procedure of Data Collection for Conducting a Research through

Observation & Interview

Md. Raihan UbaidullahMd. Raihan UbaidullahMd. Raihan UbaidullahMd. Raihan Ubaidullah

1111

1 Assistant Chief (Trade Policy Division), Bangladesh Tariff Commission. Mr. Md. Raihan Ubaidullah joined at

Bangladesh Tariff Commission in 2007 as a Public Relations and Publication Officer. Before Joining at BTC, he worked at BRAC and UNFPA. He has completed his Master in Public Policy from KDI School of Public Policy and Management of South Korea. His prior Master degree was from Department of Mass Communication and Journalism of the University of Dhaka. Beside it, he completed Post Graduate Diploma in Information Technology from IIT, DU, Post Graduate Diploma in Population Science from DPS, DU and Post Graduate Diploma in Personnel Management from Bangladesh Institute of Management. Moreover, he has 27 years affiliation with Bangladesh Scouts and other voluntary organizations like LiveStrong Foundation, World Ocean Conservancy, International Coastal Cleanup Program, Green Peace Australia and so on. For further information please communicate at: [email protected] and www.bd.linkedin.com/in/mdraihanubaidullah.

Techniques of Data Collection 2015

1. PREAMBLE

Data collection is the process of gathering and measuring information on variables of

interest, in an established systematic fashion that enables one to answer stated research

questions, test hypotheses, and evaluate outcomes. The data collection component of research

is common to all fields of study including physical and social sciences, humanities, business, etc. While methods vary by discipline, the emphasis on ensuring accurate and honest

collection remains the same. The goal for all data collection is to capture quality evidence that

then translates to rich data analysis and allows the building of a convincing and credible

answer to questions that have been posed (www.en.wikipedia.org).

Regardless of the field of study or preference for defining data (quantitative,

qualitative), accurate data collection is essential to maintaining the integrity of research. Both

the selection of appropriate data collection instruments (existing, modified, or newly

developed) and clearly delineated instructions for their correct use reduce the likelihood of

errors occurring (www.en.wikipedia.org).

A formal data collection process is necessary as it ensures that data gathered are both

defined and accurate and that subsequent decisions based on arguments embodied in the

findings are valid. The process provides both a baseline from which to measure and in certain

cases a target on what to improve (www.en.wikipedia.org).

Figure 01: Types of Data Collection (www.fao.org)

Generally there are three types of data collection and they are (www.en.wikipedia.org):

Surveys: Standardized paper-and-pencil or phone questionnaires that ask

predetermined questions.

Interviews: Structured or unstructured one-on-one directed conversations with

key individuals or leaders in a community.

Focus groups: Structured interviews with small groups of like individuals using

standardized questions, follow-up questions, and exploration of other topics that

arise to better understand participants.

Consequences from improperly collected data include (www.en.wikipedia.org):

Inability to answer research questions accurately.

Inability to repeat and validate the study.

Distorted findings result in wasted resources and can mislead other researchers to pursue

fruitless avenues of investigation. This compromises decisions for public policy, and causes

harm to human participants and animal subjects. While the degree of impact from faulty data


M d . R a i h a n U b a i d u l l a h , B a n g l a d e s h T a r i f f C o m m i s s i o n

Page 3

collection may vary by discipline and the nature of investigation, there is the potential to

cause disproportionate harm when these research results are used to support public policy

recommendations (Weimer, J., 1995).

2. TECHNIQUES OF DATA COLLECTION

2.1 QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE METHODS

Data are usually collected through qualitative and quantitative methods (Hawe, P.,

Degeling, D., Hall, J., 1990). Qualitative approaches aim to address the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of a

program and tend to use unstructured methods of data collection to fully explore the topic.

Qualitative questions are open-ended such as ‘why do participants enjoy the program?’ and

‘How does the program help increase self esteem for participants?’. Qualitative methods

include focus groups, group discussions and interviews. Quantitative approaches on the other

hand address the ‘what’ of the program. They use a systematic standardized approach and employ methods such as surveys (Hawe, P., Degeling, D., Hall, J., 1990) and ask questions

such as ‘what activities did the program run?’ and ‘what skills do staff need to implement the

program effectively (www.mypeer.org.au)?’

Both methods have their strengths and weaknesses. Qualitative approaches are good

for further exploring the effects and unintended consequences of a program. They are,

however, expensive and time consuming to implement. Additionally the findings cannot be generalized to participants outside of the program and are only indicative of the group

involved (Hawe, P., Degeling, D., Hall, J., 1990).

Quantitative approaches have the advantage that they are cheaper to implement, are

standardized so comparisons can be easily made and the size of the effect can usually be

measured. Quantitative approaches however are limited in their capacity for the investigation

and explanation of similarities and unexpected differences (Hawe, P., Degeling, D., Hall, J.,

1990). It is important to note that for peer-based programs quantitative data collection

approaches often prove to be difficult to implement for agencies as lack of necessary

resources to ensure rigorous implementation of surveys and frequently experienced low

participation and loss to follow up rates are commonly experienced factors

(www.mypeer.org.au).

2.2 MIXED METHODS

Mixed methods approaches may mean a number of things: ie a number of different

types of methods in a study or at different points within a study, or, using a mixture of

qualitative and quantitative methods (Hanson, W E., Creswell, J W., Plano Clark V L., Petska

K S., and Creswell J D., 2005).

Mixed methods encompass multifaceted approaches that combine to capitalise on

strengths and reduce weaknesses that stem from using a single research design (Hanson, W

E., Creswell, J W., Plano Clark V L., Petska K S., and Creswell J D., 2005). Using this

approach to gather and evaluate data may assist to increase the validity and reliability of the

research (www.mypeer.org.au).

Some of the common areas in which mixed-method approaches may be used include:

Initiating, designing, developing and expanding interventions;

Evaluation;

Improving research design; and



Page 4

Corroborating findings, data triangulation or convergence (Taket A., 2010).

Some of the challenges of using a mixed methods approach include:

Delineating complementary qualitative and quantitative research questions;

Time-intensive data collection and analysis; and

Decisions regarding which research methods to combine (Greene, J. C., &

Caracelli, V. J., 2003).

These challenges call for training and multidisciplinary collaboration and may

therefore require greater resources (both financial and personnel) and a higher workload than

using a single method (Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J., 2003). However this may be

mediated by identifying key issues early and ensuring the participation of experts in

qualitative and quantitative research (Taket A., 2010).

Mixed methods are useful in highlighting complex research problems such as

disparities in health and can also be transformative in addressing issues for vulnerable or

marginalized populations or research which involves community participation (Greene, J. C.,

& Caracelli, V. J., 2003). Using a mixed-methods approach is one way to develop creative

options to traditional or single design approaches to research and evaluation (Greene, J. C., &

Caracelli, V. J., 2003).

2.3 SURVEYS

Surveys are a good way of gathering a large amount of data, providing a broad

perspective. Surveys can be administered electronically, by telephone, by mail or face to face.

Mail and electronically administered surveys have a wide reach, are relatively cheap to

administer, information is standardized and privacy can be maintained (Hawe, P., Degeling,

D., Hall, J., 1990). They do, however, have a low response rate, are unable to investigate

issues to any great depth, require that the target group is literate and do not allow for any

observation (Hawe, P., Degeling, D., Hall, J., 1990).

As surveys are self-reported by participants, there is a possibility that responses may

be biased particularly if the issues involved are sensitive or require some measure of

disclosure on trust by the participant. It is therefore vital that surveys used are designed and

tested for validity and reliability with the target groups who will be completing the surveys

(www.mypeer.org.au).

Careful attention must be given to the design of the survey. If possible the use of an already designed and validated survey instrument will ensure that the data being collected is

accurate. If you design your own survey it is necessary to pilot test the survey on a sample of

your target group to ensure that the survey instrument is measuring what it intends to measure

and is appropriate for the target group (Hawe, P., Degeling, D., Hall, J., 1990).

Questions within the survey can be asked in several ways and include: closed

questions, open-ended and scaled questions, and multiple choice questions. Closed questions

are usually in the format of yes/no or true/false options. Open-ended questions on the other

hand leave the answer entirely up to the respondent and therefore provide a greater range of

responses (Hawe, P., Degeling, D., Hall, J., 1990). Additionally, the use of scales is useful

when assessing participants’ attitudes. A multiple choice question may ask respondents to

indicate their favorite topic covered in the program, or most preferred activity. Other

considerations when developing a survey instrument include: question sequence, layout and



Page 5

appearance, length, language, and an introduction and cover letter (Hawe, P., Degeling, D.,

Hall, J., 1990). Sensitive questions should be placed near the end of a survey rather than at the

beginning (www.mypeer.org.au).

Offering young people an incentive for completing the survey or embedding the

survey as a compulsory item within the program schedule or curriculum may be useful to

maximize the response rate (www.mypeer.org.au).

2.4 INTERVIEWS

Interviews can be conducted face-to-face or by telephone. They can range from in-

depth, semi-structured to unstructured depending on the information being sought (Bowling,

A. 1997).

Face to face interviews are advantageous since:

detailed questions can be asked

further probing can be done to provide rich data literacy requirements of participants is not an issue

non verbal data can be collected through observation

complex and unknown issues can be explored

Response rates are usually higher than for self-administered questionnaires

(Bowling, A. 1997).

Disadvantages of face to face interviews include:

they can be expensive and time consuming

training of interviewers is necessary to reduce interviewer bias and are

administered in a standardized why

they are prone to interviewer bias and interpreter bias (if interpreters are used)

Sensitive issues maybe challenging (Bowling, A. 1997).

Telephone interviews according to Bowling (Bowling, A. 1997), yield just as accurate

data as face to face interviews.

Telephone interviews are advantageous as they:

are cheaper and faster than face to face interviews to conduct use less resources than face to face interviews

allow to clarify questions

do not require literacy skills (Bowling, A. 1997).

Disadvantages of telephone interviews include:

having to make repeated calls as calls may not be answered the first time potential bias if call backs are not made so bias is towards those who are at home

only suitable for short surveys

only accessible to the population with a telephone

not appropriate for exploring sensitive issues (Bowling, A. 1997).



Page 6

2.5 FOCUS GROUPS

Focus groups or group discussions are useful to further explore a topic, providing a

broader understanding of why the target group may behave or think in a particular way, and assist in determining the reason for attitudes and beliefs (Hawe, P., Degeling, D., Hall, J.,

1990). They are conducted with a small sample of the target group and are used to stimulate

discussion and gain greater insights (Bowling, A., 1997).

Focus groups and group discussions are advantageous as they:

are useful when exploring cultural values and health beliefs

can be used to examine how and why people think in a particular way and how is

influences their beliefs and values

can be used to explore complex issues

can be used to develop hypothesis for further research

do not require participants to be literate (Bowling, A., 1997).

Disadvantages of focus groups include:

lack of privacy/anonymity

having to carefully balance the group to ensure they are culturally and gender

appropriate (i.e. gender may be an issue)

potential for the risk of ‘group think’ (not allowing for other attitudes, beliefs

etc.) potential for group to be dominated by one or two people

group leader needs to be skilled at conducting focus groups, dealing with conflict,

drawing out passive participants and creating a relaxed, welcoming environment

are time consuming to conduct and can be difficult and time consuming to

analyze (Bowling, A., 1997).

2.6 DOCUMENTATION

Substantial description and documentation, often referred to as “thick description”,

can be used to further explore a subject (Nastasi, B. & Schensul, S., 2005). This process

provides a thorough description of the “study participants, context and procedures, the

purpose of the intervention and its transferability” (Nastasi, B. & Schensul, S., 2005). Thick

description also includes the complexities experienced in addition to the commonalities found, which assists in maintaining data integrity (www.mypeer.org.au).

The use of documentation provides an ongoing record of activities. This can be

records of informal feedback and reflections through journals, diaries or progress reports. The

challenge of documentation is that it requires an ongoing commitment to regularly document

thoughts and activities throughout the evaluation process (www.mypeer.org.au).

2.7 CREATIVE STRATEGIES

Drama, exhibition, and video are imaginative and attractive alternatives to the written word (Curtis, L., Springett, J., and Kennedy, A., 2001). These imaginative new approaches

can be used to demystify the evaluation process. Using creative arts in evaluation offers

opportunities for imaginative ways of understanding programs and creating evaluation

knowledge. The creative arts may be used in designing, interpreting, and communicating

evaluations (Simmins, H., and McCormack, B., 2007). The direct perception and

understanding a creative arts approach brings is helpful to the evaluator in gaining a deep

understanding of the program. In addition, this approach is a useful means of connecting with participants’ experience in an evaluation (Simmins, H., and McCormack, B., 2007).



Page 7

Creative strategies are advantageous as they:

provide an opportunity for participants to portray experience through different art

forms which often reveals insights that they may not have been able to articulate

in words;

accommodate for people who learn in different ways, who have different cultural

backgrounds and/or who are less articulate, it can be a most useful means of engaging them in an evaluation and offering them a voice;

cab use a combination of arts-based approaches in the evaluation process; and

can be used in conjunction with more traditional approaches.

Challenges arising from creative strategies include:

Participants are often fearful of engaging with art. This may be as a result of past

negative experiences of art in school or lack of belief in their own abilities. The

challenge is to assure them that they or their final product are not being judged. It

is the process of engaging with art that often elicits valuable data. The success of such an approach can often rely on the interest levels of the

participants; the task needs to be defined clearly, emphasising the reasoning

behind it.

There are multiple forms of creative strategies which you can explore.

2.8 TRIANGULATION

Triangulation is used to address the validity of the data (Barbour, R., 2001).

Triangulation methods use multiple forms of data collection, such as focus groups,

observation and in-depth interviews to investigate the evaluation objectives. Utilising multiple

data collection methods leads to an acceptance of reliability and validity when the data from

the various sources are comparable and consistent (Golafshani, N., 2003). Using more than

one person to collect the data can also increase its reliability. This, however, will significantly

increase the cost of the evaluation. Additionally, theory triangulation provides new insights

by drawing on multiple theoretical perspectives (Nutbeam, D., & A. Bauman., 2006).

3. BRIEF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE

3.1 OBSERVATION

Observation is a systematic data collection approach. Researchers use all of their

senses to examine people in natural settings or naturally occurring situations

(www.qualres.org).

Observation of a field setting involves (www.qualres.org):

prolonged engagement in a setting or social situation

clearly expressed, self-conscious notations of how observing is done

methodical and tactical improvisation in order to develop a full understanding

of the setting of interest

imparting attention in ways that is in some sense 'standardized'

recording one's observations


Figure 02: Flow Chart of the Data Collection Procedure of Observation (www.informationr.net)

3.1.1 WHEN MIGHT OBSERVATION BE USED?

There are a variety of reasons for collecting observational data. Some of these

reasons include:

When the nature of the research question to be answered is focused on answering

a how- or what-type question (www.qualres.org)

When the topic is relatively unexplored and little is known to explain the behavior of

people in a particular setting (www.qualres.org)

When understanding the meaning of a setting in a detailed way is valuable

When it is important to study a phenomenon in its natural setting (www.qualres.org)

When self-report data (asking people what they do) is likely to be different from actual behavior (what people actually do). One example of this seen in the difference

between self-reported versus observed preventive service delivery in health care

settings (www.qualres.org).

When implementing an intervention in a natural setting, observation may be used in

conjunction with other quantitative data collection techniques. Observational data

can help researchers evaluate the fidelity of an intervention across settings

and identify when 'stasis' has been achieved (www.qualres.org).

3.1.2 HOW THE OBSERVATION WILL BE CONDUCTED?

3.1.2.1 PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION

Some researchers draw a distinction between participant observation and

observation. This distinction is murky. Participant observation "combines participation in the

lives of the people being studied with maintenance of a professional distance that allows

adequate observation and recording of data" (Fetterman, 1998, pp. 34-35).

Participant observation underscores the person's role as participant in the social

setting he or she observes. The range of roles one may play as a participant observer have

been describe by Gold (1958), Adler and Adler (1984) and others. Bernard (1998) suggests

that participant observation must be learned in the field. However, he identifies serveral skills

associated with participant observation. For a more developed discussion of the distinction

between observation and participant observation see Savage (2000) and for a discussion of

participant observation as a methodology see Jorgensen (1989).


Figure 03: Flow Chart to conduct an observation (www.uic.edu)

3.1.2.2 NON-PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION

Non-participant observation is observation with limited interaction with the people

one observes. For example, some observational data can be collected unobtrusively (e.g.

worn out carpet as indicators of high use areas in a physical setting). Researchers who

study how people communicate often want to examine the details of how people talk and

behave together. Non-participant observation involving the use of recording devices might be

a good choice. This data collection approach results in a detailed recording of the

communication and provides the researcher with access to the contours of talk (e.g.

intonation) as well as body behavior (e.g. facial expression, eye gaze). Even a great observer

cannot record these aspects in detail. Non-participant observation may provide limited insight

into the meaning of the social context studied. If this contextual understanding is

important, participant observation might be needed. These two data collection techniques can

complement each other and be used together (www.qualres.org).

3.1.2.3 OBSERVING BY VIDEO OR AUDIO RECORDING

If people are to be observed in a closed setting, the researcher is not a participant

observer, and tape- or video-recording is permissable then this data recording

approach may be appropriate (e.g. physician-patient encounters). Choosing to tape-record of

video-record a setting will depend in large part on what is permissable in that setting. There

are, however, a few things to keep in mind (www.qualres.org):

Decisions regarding how to record observational data depend largely on the focus of

the research question and the analytical approach proposed.

If the researcher is trying to understand how people behave together and the people in

question can see each other, then the use of video may be recommended. This is

because of the important role that bodily-based behavior plays in our social processes. Without this visual information, the researcher may not fully understand



Page 10

what transpires (e.g. physician-patient encounters). Additionally, capturing the

details of this behavior in fieldnotes will be difficult.

Audio-recording a telephone counseling session makes sense because the two

interactants (and the researcher) only have access to verbal communication.

Audio and video recordings afford the researcher the opportunity to transcribe what

occurs in a setting and play it over and over. This can be very useful in the analysis

process.

3.1.2.4 FIELD NOTES

Participant observers may use multiple methods to gather data. One primary

approach involves writing fieldnotes. There are several guides for learning how to prepare

fieldnotes. Researchers may be interested in creating or using a template to guide a

researcher’s observations (www.qualres.org).

Templates or observational coding sheets can be useful when data is collected by

inexperienced observers

Templates or observational coding sheets should only be developed after observation

in the field that is not inhibited by such a template

Theories and concepts can be driven by templates and result in focused data

collection

Templates can deflect attention from unnamed categories, unimagined and unanticipated activities that can be very important to understanding a phenomenon

and a setting

3.1.2.5 SECOND-HAND REPORTS

These are reports about participant behavior or about conditions that come from

people associated with those participants or conditions, but not directly connected to your

program or effort. They might be service workers, teachers, health professionals youth

workers, family members (particularly parents of young children), employers – almost

anyone. Second-hand observations have to be viewed with some of the same cautions as those

from people who work closely with participants. Observer-participant relationships, sympathy

or empathy for participants, or observers’ personal biases can all keep reports from being

objective. These observers may also need training (www.ctb.ku.edu).

3.1.2.6 TESTS OR OTHER SIMILAR OBSERVATION TOOLS

Education and health organizations often use various kinds of tests as observation

tools. In a human service context, they are generally used to observe progress in skills,

competency levels, or development. In public health or medicine, tests may be used to

observe health status (e.g., screenings for elevated blood cholesterol) and the effects of treatment. They can be very useful in all these circumstances, but they’re also very specific,

and much room should not be allowed for intuition. In addition, the results of tests of skills,

knowledge, or intellectual ability may be influenced by nervousness, lack of sleep, personal

problems, or other factors that have little to do with actual competency (www.ctb.ku.edu).

3.1.2.7 PUBLIC RECORDS AND THE LIKE

If community-level indicators will be used, such as rates of infant mortality or injuries

due to motor vehicle crashes, as one way of looking at outcomes, records, census data, and

other similar material have to be used to get the necessary data (www.ctb.ku.edu).



Page 11

3.1.3 BENEFITS

Immersion and prolonged involvement in a setting can lead to the development of

rapport and foster free and open speaking with members. Observation fosters an in depth and

rich understanding of a phenomenon, situation and/or setting and the behavior of the

participants in that setting. Observation is an essential part of gaining an understanding of

naturalistic settings and its members' ways of seeing. Observation can provide the foundation

for theory and hypothesis development (www.qualres.org).

3.1.4 ADVANTAGES OF OBSERVATION

3.1.4.1 DIRECTNESS

The main strength of observation is that it provides direct access to the social

phenomena under consideration. Instead of relying on some kind of self-report, such as asking

people what they would do in a certain situation, you actually observe and record their

behavior in that situation. This, in principle at least, avoids the wide range of problems

associated with self-report. In an interview situation or in response to a questionnaire item, for

example, a person may not always provide accurate or complete information, or they might

answer in ways that correspond to what is socially desirable. There is a recognized source of

bias in self-report techniques referred to as a 'social desirability set', which means that in

many spheres of social life there are socially desirable ways of behaving and, consciously or

unconsciously, individuals will tend to respond in that way, although in the 'real world' they

might behave differently. Asking children whether they would tend to be helpful to other

children in certain situations, for example, would be susceptible to such a source of bias (www.strath.ac.uk).

3.1.4.2 DIVERSITY, FLEXIBILITY AND APPLICABILITY

Observation can take diverse forms, from informal and unstructured approaches

through to tightly structured, standardized procedures and can yield associated diverse types

of data, both qualitative and quantitative. Observation, therefore, is applicable in a wide range

of contexts (www.strath.ac.uk).

3.1.4.3 PROVISION OF A PERMANENT RECORD

Much of human social behaviour that may be of interest to the researcher is highly

transient. The fact that all observation entails some form of recording means that it provides a

permanent record of such events or behavior, thus allowing further analysis or subsequent

comparisons across time or location to be carried out (www.strath.ac.uk).

3.1.4.4 COMPLEMENTARILY WITH OTHER APPROACHES

Using more than one technique of data collection through a process of triangulation is

seen as highly desirable as an overarching research strategy. Therefore, another strength of

observation is that it can effectively complement other approaches and thus enhance the

quality of evidence available to the researcher (www.strath.ac.uk).

3.1.5 DISADVANTAGES OF OBSERVATION

3.1.5.1 PRACTICABILITY

One of the main disadvantages of observation is that it can be very time consuming and resource intensive. Observation may be a very desirable strategy to explore certain

research questions, but it may simply not be feasible for the researcher with limited time and



Page 12

resources to carry out the observation and, therefore, alternative strategies would have to be

pursued (www.strath.ac.uk).

3.1.5.2 OBSERVER BIAS

A fundamental potential weakness of all observation is that it is susceptible to

observer bias – subjective bias on the part of the observer – thus undermining the reliability

and hence the validity of the data gathered. This can be because the observer records not what

actually happened, but what they either wanted to see, expected to see, or merely thought they

saw (www.strath.ac.uk).

3.1.5.3 OBSERVER EFFECT

Another potential weakness of observation is the so-called observer effect, which

refers to the way in which the presence of an observer in some way influences the behaviour of those being observed. In order to avoid or minimize this, methods of observation

sometimes attempt to be as unobtrusive as possible (www.strath.ac.uk).

3.2 INTERVIEWS

There are three fundamental types of research interviews: structured, semi-structured

and unstructured. Structured interviews are, essentially, verbally administered questionnaires, in which a list of predetermined questions are asked, with little or no variation and with no

scope for follow-up questions to responses that warrant further elaboration. Consequently,

they are relatively quick and easy to administer and may be of particular use if clarification of

certain questions are required or if there are likely to be literacy or numeracy problems with

the respondents. However, by their very nature, they only allow for limited participant

responses and are, therefore, of little use if 'depth' is required (Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure,

E. & Chadwick, B., 2008).

Conversely, unstructured interviews do not reflect any preconceived theories or ideas

and are performed with little or no organization. Such an interview may simply start with an

opening question such as 'Can you tell me about your experience of visiting the dentist?' and

will then progress based, primarily, upon the initial response. Unstructured interviews are

usually very time-consuming (often lasting several hours) and can be difficult to manage, and to participate in, as the lack of predetermined interview questions provides little guidance on

what to talk about (which many participants find confusing and unhelpful). Their use is,

therefore, generally only considered where significant 'depth' is required, or where virtually

nothing is known about the subject area (or a different perspective of a known subject area is

required) (Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E. & Chadwick, B., 2008).

Semi-structured interviews consist of several key questions that help to define the areas to be explored, but also allows the interviewer or interviewee to diverge in order to

pursue an idea or response in more detail. This interview format is used most frequently in

healthcare, as it provides participants with some guidance on what to talk about, which many

find helpful. The flexibility of this approach, particularly compared to structured interviews,

also allows for the discovery or elaboration of information that is important to participants but

may not have previously been thought of as pertinent by the research team (Gill, P., Stewart,

K., Treasure, E. & Chadwick, B., 2008).

For example, in a recent dental public heath study, school children in Cardiff, UK

were interviewed about their food choices and preferences. A key finding that emerged from



Page 13

semi-structured interviews, which was not previously thought to be as highly influential as the

data subsequently confirmed, was the significance of peer-pressure in influencing children's

food choices and preferences. This finding was also established primarily through follow-up

questioning (eg probing interesting responses with follow-up questions, such as 'Can you tell

me a bit more about that?') and, therefore, may not have emerged in the same way, if at all, if

asked as a predetermined question (Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E. & Chadwick, B., 2008).

3.2.1 THE PURPOSE OF RESEARCH INTERVIEWS

The purpose of the research interview is to explore the views, experiences, beliefs

and/or motivations of individuals on specific matters (eg factors that influence their

attendance at the dentist). Qualitative methods, such as interviews, are believed to provide a

'deeper' understanding of social phenomena than would be obtained from purely quantitative

methods, such as questionnaires (Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E. & Chadwick, B., 2008).

Interviews are, therefore, most appropriate where little is already known about the study

phenomenon or where detailed insights are required from individual participants. They are

also particularly appropriate for exploring sensitive topics, where participants may not want to

talk about such issues in a group environment (Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E. & Chadwick,

B., 2008).

Examples of dental studies that have collected data using interviews are 'Examining

the psychosocial process involved in regular dental attendance'(Gibson B, Drenna J, Hanna S,

Freeman R., 2000) and 'Exploring factors governing dentists' treatment philosophies'. (Kay E

J, Blinkhorn A S., 1996) Gibson et al. (Gibson B, Drenna J, Hanna S, Freeman R., 2000)

provided an improved understanding of factors that influenced people's regular attendance

with their dentist. The study by Kay and Blinkhorn (Kay E J, Blinkhorn A S., 1996) provided

a detailed insight into factors that influenced GDPs' decision making in relation to treatment choices. The study found that dentists' clinical decisions about treatments were not necessarily

related to pathology or treatment options, as was perhaps initially thought, but also involved

discussions with patients, patients' values and dentists' feelings of self esteem and conscience.

There are many similarities between clinical encounters and research interviews, in that both

employ similar interpersonal skills, such as questioning, conversing and listening. However,

there are also some fundamental differences between the two, such as the purpose of the

encounter, reasons for participating, roles of the people involved and how the interview is conducted and recorded (Pontin D., 2000).

The primary purpose of clinical encounters is for the dentist to ask the patient

questions in order to acquire sufficient information to inform decision making and treatment

options. However, the constraints of most consultations are such that any open-ended

questioning needs to be brought to a conclusion within a fairly short time (Pope C, Mays N,

1999). In contrast, the fundamental purpose of the research interview is to listen attentively to

what respondents have to say, in order to acquire more knowledge about the study topic

(Kvale S, 1996). Unlike the clinical encounter, it is not to intentionally offer any form of help

or advice, which many researchers have neither the training nor the time for. Research

interviewing therefore requires a different approach and a different range of skills

(www.nature.com).

3.2.2 THE INTERVIEW

When designing an interview schedule it is imperative to ask questions that are likely

to yield as much information about the study phenomenon as possible and also be able to address the aims and objectives of the research. In a qualitative interview, good questions

should be open-ended (ie, require more than a yes/no answer), neutral, sensitive and



Page 14

understandable (Britten N, 1999). It is usually best to start with questions that participants can

answer easily and then proceed to more difficult or sensitive topics (Britten N, 1999). This

can help put respondents at ease, build up confidence and rapport and often generates rich

data that subsequently develops the interview further (www.nature.com).

As in any research, it is often wise to first pilot the interview schedule on several

respondents prior to data collection proper (Pontin D., 2000). This allows the research team to

establish if the schedule is clear, understandable and capable of answering the research

questions, and if, therefore, any changes to the interview schedule are required (Pontin D.,

2000).

The length of interviews varies depending on the topic, researcher and participant.

However, on average, healthcare interviews last 20-60 minutes. Interviews can be performed

on a one-off or, if change over time is of interest, repeated basis, (May K M., 1991) for

example exploring the psychosocial impact of oral trauma on participants and their subsequent experiences of cosmetic dental surgery (www.nature.com).

3.2.3 DEVELOPING THE INTERVIEW

Before an interview takes place, respondents should be informed about the study

details and given assurance about ethical principles, such as anonymity and confidentiality

(Britten N, 1999). This gives respondents some idea of what to expect from the interview, increases the likelihood of honesty and is also a fundamental aspect of the informed consent

process (Britten N, 1999).

Wherever possible, interviews should be conducted in areas free from distractions and

at times and locations that are most suitable for participants. For many this may be at their

own home in the evenings. Whilst researchers may have less control over the home

environment, familiarity may help the respondent to relax and result in a more productive

interview (Kvale S., 1996). Establishing rapport with participants prior to the interview is also

important as this can also have a positive effect on the subsequent development of the

interview (www.nature.com).

When conducting the actual interview it is prudent for the interviewer to familiarise

themselves with the interview schedule, so that the process appears more natural and less rehearsed. However, to ensure that the interview is as productive as possible, researchers must

possess a repertoire of skills and techniques to ensure that comprehensive and representative

data are collected during the interview (Hammersley M, Atkinson P, 1995). One of the most

important skills is the ability to listen attentively to what is being said, so that participants are

able to recount their experiences as fully as possible, without unnecessary interruptions

(www.nature.com).

Other important skills include adopting open and emotionally neutral body language,

nodding, smiling, looking interested and making encouraging noises (eg, 'Mmmm') during the

interview (Britten N., 1999). The strategic use of silence, if used appropriately, can also be

highly effective at getting respondents to contemplate their responses, talk more, elaborate or

clarify particular issues. Other techniques that can be used to develop the interview further

include reflecting on remarks made by participants (eg, 'Pain?') and probing remarks ('When

you said you were afraid of going to the dentist what did you mean?') (Kvale S., 1996). Where appropriate, it is also wise to seek clarification from respondents if it is unclear what

they mean. The use of 'leading' or 'loaded' questions that may unduly influence responses



Page 15

should always be avoided (eg, 'So you think dental surgery waiting rooms are frightening?'

rather than 'How do you find the waiting room at the dentists?') (www.nature.com).

At the end of the interview it is important to thank participants for their time and ask

them if there is anything they would like to add. This gives respondents an opportunity to deal

with issues that they have thought about, or think are important but have not been dealt with

by the interviewer (Kvale S., 1996). This can often lead to the discovery of new,

unanticipated information. Respondents should also be debriefed about the study after the

interview has finished (www.nature.com).

All interviews should be tape recorded and transcribed verbatim afterwards, as this

protects against bias and provides a permanent record of what was and was not said (Pontin

D., 2000). It is often also helpful to make 'field notes' during and immediately after each

interview about observations, thoughts and ideas about the interview, as this can help in data

analysis process (Pontin D., 2000).

3.2.4 INTERVIEWS PROCEDURES

3.2.4.1 REASONS FOR USING INTERVIEWS

Interviews are a useful method to (www.evalued.bcu.ac.uk):

investigate issues in an in depth way

discover how individuals think and feel about a topic and why they hold certain

opinions

investigate the use, effectiveness and usefulness of particular library collections and

services

inform decision making, strategic planning and resource allocation

sensitive topics which people may feel uncomfortable discussing in a focus group

add a human dimension to impersonal data

deepen understanding and explain statistical data.

3.2.4.2 INTERVIEW PROCESS

Stage 1: Determine what information is required (www.evalued.bcu.ac.uk). Stage 2: Decide on the method of data collection and the audience for the interviews eg

students, library staff, academics (www.evalued.bcu.ac.uk).

Interviews can be conducted face-to-face, by telephone or using chat messaging.

Interviewees might be contacted by email, posters or flyers or, if particular individuals are to

be targeted, by individual invitations sent by post or email. Tutors may be useful to help to

recruit students. Invitations should describe (www.evalued.bcu.ac.uk):

the purpose of the interview

the participants' role and what is expected of them

how long the interview will last

any rewards which will be provided.

Stage 3: Draft the interview schedule, considering content, wording, format, structure and layout (www.evalued.bcu.ac.uk).



Page 16

Issues to consider (www.evalued.bcu.ac.uk):

Can the question be easily understood?

Is the question biased?

Is the question necessary to the evaluation?

Will interviewees be willing to provide the information?

Is the question applicable to all interviewees?

Does the question allow interviewees to offer their opinions/expand on basic

answers?

Are follow up questions likely to be required?

Will it be straightforward to analyse?

Stage 4: Pilot/test the interview schedule with colleagues or a sample of potential

interviewees and revise as necessary (www.evalued.bcu.ac.uk).

Stage 5: Conduct the interviews (www.evalued.bcu.ac.uk).

In the introduction, the evaluator should (www.evalued.bcu.ac.uk):

confirm that anonymity will be preserved

describe the ground rules

reiterate the purpose of the research.

Record interviews if possible to allow greater interaction between the interviewer and respondent

Conducting interviews by telephone can reduce the costs and time involved

Preplanning is important: know who you are going to interview, when and where.

Keep to time

Advise interviewees that their confidentiality/anonymity will be respected

Advise interviewees how you intend to use and make available the results.

Stage 6: Transcribe interviews

Stage 7: Analyse the transcripts

Stage 8: Write up, present and use the findings

3.2.5 FOCUS GROUPS

Focus groups share many common features with less structured interviews, but there

is more to them than merely collecting similar data from many participants at once. A focus

group is a group discussion on a particular topic organized for research purposes. This

discussion is guided, monitored and recorded by a researcher (sometimes called a moderator

or facilitator) (Kitzinger J., 1994).

Focus groups were first used as a research method in market research, originating in

the 1940s in the work of the Bureau of Applied Social Research at Columbia University.

Eventually the success of focus groups as a marketing tool in the private sector resulted in its

use in public sector marketing, such as the assessment of the impact of health education

campaigns (Bloor M, Frankland J, Thomas M, Robson K., 2001). However, focus group

techniques, as used in public and private sectors, have diverged over time. Therefore, in this

paper, we seek to describe focus groups as they are used in academic research (Bloor M,

Frankland J, Thomas M, Robson K., 2001).



Page 17

3.2.5.1 WHEN FOCUS GROUPS ARE USED

Focus groups are used for generating information on collective views, and the

meanings that lie behind those views. They are also useful in generating a rich understanding

of participants' experiences and beliefs (Morgan D L., 1998). Suggested criteria for using

focus groups include (Bloor M, Frankland J, Thomas M, Robson K., 2001):

As a standalone method, for research relating to group norms, meanings and

processes

In a multi-method design, to explore a topic or collect group language or narratives to

be used in later stages To clarify, extend, qualify or challenge data collected through other methods

To feedback results to research participants.

Morgan (Morgan D L, 1998) suggests that focus groups should be avoided according to the

following criteria:

If listening to participants' views generates expectations for the outcome of the research that can not be fulfilled

If participants are uneasy with each other, and will therefore not discuss their feelings

and opinions openly

If the topic of interest to the researcher is not a topic the participants can or wish to

discuss

If statistical data is required. Focus groups give depth and insight, but cannot produce

useful numerical results.

3.2.5.2 CONDUCTING FOCUS GROUPS: GROUP COMPOSITION AND SIZE

The composition of a focus group needs great care to get the best quality of

discussion. There is no 'best' solution to group composition, and group mix will always

impact on the data, according to things such as the mix of ages, sexes and social professional

statuses of the participants. What is important is that the researcher gives due consideration to

the impact of group mix (eg, how the group may interact with each other) before the focus

group proceeds (Stewart D W, Shamdasani P M., 1990).

Interaction is key to a successful focus group. Sometimes this means a pre-existing

group interacts best for research purposes, and sometimes stranger groups. Pre-existing

groups may be easier to recruit, have shared experiences and enjoy a comfort and familiarity which facilitates discussion or the ability to challenge each other comfortably. In health

settings, pre-existing groups can overcome issues relating to disclosure of potentially

stigmatising status which people may find uncomfortable in stranger groups (conversely there

may be situations where disclosure is more comfortable in stranger groups). In other research

projects it may be decided that stranger groups will be able to speak more freely without fear

of repercussion, and challenges to other participants may be more challenging and probing,

leading to richer data (Bloor M, Frankland J, Thomas M, Robson K., 2001).

Group size is an important consideration in focus group research. Stewart and

Shamdasani (Stewart D W, Shamdasani P M., 1990) suggest that it is better to slightly over-

recruit for a focus group and potentially manage a slightly larger group, than under-recruit

and risk having to cancel the session or having an unsatisfactory discussion. They advise that

each group will probably have two non-attenders. The optimum size for a focus group is six

to eight participants (excluding researchers), but focus groups can work successfully with as



Page 18

few as three and as many as 14 participants. Small groups risk limited discussion occurring,

while large groups can be chaotic, hard to manage for the moderator and frustrating for

participants who feel they get insufficient opportunities to speak (Bloor M, Frankland J,

Thomas M, Robson K., 2001).

3.2.5.3 PREPARING AN INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

Like research interviews, the interview schedule for focus groups is often no more

structured than a loose schedule of topics to be discussed. However, in preparing an interview

schedule for focus groups, Stewart and Shamdasani (Stewart D W, Shamdasani P M., 1990) suggest two general principles (www.nature.com):

1. Questions should move from general to more specific questions

2. Question order should be relative to importance of issues in the research agenda.

There can, however, be some conflict between these two principles, and trade offs are

often needed, although often discussions will take on a life of their own, which will influence

or determine the order in which issues are covered. Usually, less than a dozen predetermined questions are needed and, as with research interviews, the researcher will also probe and

expand on issues according to the discussion (www.nature.com).

3.2.5.4 MODERATING

Moderating a focus group looks easy when done well, but requires a complex set of

skills, which are related to the following principles (Krueger R A., 1998):

Participants have valuable views and the ability to respond actively, positively and

respectfully. Such an approach is not simply a courtesy, but will encourage fruitful

discussions

Moderating without participating: a moderator must guide a discussion rather than

join in with it. Expressing one's own views tends to give participants cues as to what

to say (introducing bias), rather than the confidence to be open and honest about their

own views

Be prepared for views that may be unpalatably critical of a topic which may be

important to you

It is important to recognize that researchers' individual characteristics mean that no

one person will always be suitable to moderate any kind of group. Sometimes the

characteristics that suit a moderator for one group will inhibit discussion in another Be yourself. If the moderator is comfortable and natural, participants will feel

relaxed.

The moderator should facilitate group discussion, keeping it focused without leading

it. They should also be able to prevent the discussion being dominated by one member (for

example, by emphasising at the outset the importance of hearing a range of views), ensure

that all participants have ample opportunity to contribute, allow differences of opinions to be discussed fairly and, if required, encourage reticent participants (Bloor M, Frankland J,

Thomas M, Robson K., 2001).

3.2.5.5 OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS

The venue for a focus group is important and should, ideally, be accessible,

comfortable, private, quiet and free from distractions (Bloor M, Frankland J, Thomas M,



Page 19

Robson K., 2001). However, while a central location, such as the participants' workplace or

school, may encourage attendance, the venue may affect participants' behaviour. For example,

in a school setting, pupils may behave like pupils, and in clinical settings, participants may be

affected by any anxieties that affect them when they attend in a patient role

(www.nature.com).

Focus groups are usually recorded, often observed (by a researcher other than the

moderator, whose role is to observe the interaction of the group to enhance analysis) and

sometimes videotaped. At the start of a focus group, a moderator should acknowledge the

presence of the audio recording equipment, assure participants of confidentiality and give

people the opportunity to withdraw if they are uncomfortable with being taped (Stewart D W,

Shamdasani P M., 1990).

A good quality multi-directional external microphone is recommended for the

recording of focus groups, as internal microphones are rarely good enough to cope with the variation in volume of different speakers (Bloor M, Frankland J, Thomas M, Robson K.,

2001). If observers are present, they should be introduced to participants as someone who is

just there to observe, and sit away from the discussion (Stewart D W, Shamdasani P M.,

1990). Videotaping will require more than one camera to capture the whole group, as well as

additional operational personnel in the room. This is, therefore, very obtrusive, which can

affect the spontaneity of the group and in a focus group does not usually yield enough

additional information that could not be captured by an observer to make videotaping worthwhile (Krueger R A., 1998).

The systematic analysis of focus group transcripts is crucial. However, the

transcription of focus groups is more complex and time consuming than in one-to-one

interviews, and each hour of audio can take up to eight hours to transcribe and generate

approximately 100 pages of text. Recordings should be transcribed verbatim and also

speakers should be identified in a way that makes it possible to follow the contributions of

each individual. Sometimes observational notes also need to be described in the transcripts in

order for them to make sense (www.nature.com).

The analysis of qualitative data is explored in the final paper of this series. However,

it is important to note that the analysis of focus group data is different from other qualitative

data because of their interactive nature, and this needs to be taken into consideration during analysis. The importance of the context of other speakers is essential to the understanding of

individual contributions (Bloor M, Frankland J, Thomas M, Robson K., 2001). For example,

in a group situation, participants will often challenge each other and justify their remarks

because of the group setting, in a way that perhaps they would not in a one-to-one interview.

The analysis of focus group data must therefore take account of the group dynamics that have

generated remarks.



Page 20

Bibliography & References

Adler, PA and Adler, P. (1987). Membership roles in field research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Atkinson, P. & Hammersley, M. (1994). "Ethnography and participant observation." In NK Denzin and YS

Lincoln (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 248-261). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.

Barbour, R., (2001). Education and debate. British Medical Journal 322 (7294): 1115-1117.

Bernard, HR. (1988). Research Methods in Cultural Anthropology. (pp 152-160). Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Publications.

Bloor M, Frankland J, Thomas M, Robson K., (2001). Focus groups in social research. London: Sage Publications.

Bogdewic, SP. (1999). "Participant Observation" (pp. 47-70). In BF Crabtree and WL Miller (Eds.) Doing

Qualitative Research (2nd Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bowling, A. (1997). Research methods in health: Investigating health and health services. Place Published: Open

University Press.

Britten, N., (1999). Qualitative interviews in healthcare. In Pope C, Mays N (eds) Qualitative research in health

care. 2nd ed. pp 11–19. London: BMJ Books.

Chestnutt I G, Robson K F., (2002). Focus groups – what are they? Dent Update; 28: 189–192.

Creswell, JW. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design Choosing Among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.

Curtis, L., Springett, J., and Kennedy, A., (2001). Evaluation in Urban Settings: the challenge of healthy cities. In

Evaluation in Health Promotion: principle and perspectives, edited by I. Rootman and M. Goodstadt: World

Health Organization Regional Office for Europe.

Fetterman, DM. (1998). Ethnography Step by Step (2nd Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Gold, R. (1958). "Roles in sociological field observation." Social Forces, 36, 217-213.

Gibson B, Drenna J, Hanna S, Freeman R., (2000). An exploratory qualitative study examining the social and

psychological processes involved in regular dental attendance. J Public Health Dent; 60: 5–11.|

Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E. & Chadwick, B. (2008). Methods of data collection in qualitative research:

interviews and focus groups. British Dental Journal 204, 291 - 295 (2008), Published online: 22 March 2008 |

doi:10.1038/bdj.2008.192

Golafshani, N., (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Repor 8 (4):

597-607.

Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (2003). Making paradigmatic sense of mixed methods practice. In A. Tashakkori

& C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 91–110).Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gussy M G, Waters E, Kilpatrick M., (2006). A qualitative study exploring barriers to a model of shared care for

pre-school children's oral health. Br Dent J; 201: 165–170.

Hammersley M, Atkinson P., (1995). Ethnography: principles in practice. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.

Hanson, W E., Creswell, J W., Plano Clark V L., Petska K S., and Creswell J D., (2005). Mixed Methods Research

Designs in Counseling Psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 52, No. 2, 224–235.

Hawe, P., Degeling, D., Hall, J. (1990) Evaluating Health Promotion: A Health Worker’s Guide, MacLennan &

Petty, Sydney.

Holloway, I. (1997). Basic Concepts for Qualitative Research. London: Blackwell Science.

Jorgensen, DL. (1989). Participant Observation: A Methodology for Human Studies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Publications.

Kay E J, Blinkhorn A S., (1996). A qualitative investigation of factors governing dentists' treatment philosophies.

Br Dent J; 180: 171–176.

Kitzinger J., (1994). The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research

participants. Sociol Health Illn; 16: 103–121.

Krueger R A., (1998). Moderating focus groups. London: Sage Publications.

Kvale S., (1996). Interviews. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Leech, NL and AJ. Onwuegbuzie (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Qual Quant 43:265–275

Lescroël, A. L.; Ballard, G.; Grémillet, D.; Authier, M.; Ainley, D. G., (2014). Descamps, Sébastien, ed. "Antarctic

Climate Change: Extreme Events Disrupt Plastic Phenotypic Response in Adélie Penguins". PLoS ONE 9 (1):

e85291. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0085291. PMC 3906005. PMID 24489657. edit

Legard R, Keegan J, Ward K., (2003). In-depth interviews. In Ritchie J, Lewis J (eds) Qualitative research

practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. pp 139–169. London: Sage Publications.

Lindloff, TR. & Taylor, BC. (1995). Qualitative Communication Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Lofland, J. & Lofland, LH. (1995). Analyzing Social Settings. (3rd Edition). NY: Wadsworth Publication

Company.

May K M., (1991). Interview techniques in qualitative research: concerns and challenges. In Morse J M (ed)

Qualitative nursing research. pp 187–201. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.



Page 21

Morgan D L., (1998). The focus group guide book. London: Sage Publications.

Nastasi, B., and Schensul, S. (2005). Contributions of qualitative research to the validity of intervention research.

Journal of School Psychology 43 (3): 177-195.

Newton J T, Thorogood N, Bhavnani V, Pitt J, Gibbons D E, Gelbier S., (2001). Barriers to the use of dental

services by individuals from minority ethnic communities living in the United Kingdom: findings from focus

groups. Primary Dent Care; 8: 157–161.

Nutbeam, D., and Bauman, A., (2006). Evaluation in a nutshell. North Ryde: McGraw-Hill.

Ovretveit, J., (1998). Evaluating health interventions. Berkshire: Open University Press.

Pontin D., (2000). Interviews. In Cormack D F S (ed) The research process in nursing. 4th ed. pp 289–298.

Oxford: Blackwell Science.

Robinson P G, Acquah S, Gibson B., (2005). Drug users: oral health related attitudes and behaviours. Br Dent J;

198: 219–224.

Savage, J. (2000). "Participative observation: Standing in the shoes of others?" Qualitative Health Research (10) 3,

pp. 324-339.

Silverman, D., (2001). Interpreting Qualitative Data. (2nd Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Silverman, D., (2000). Doing qualitative research. London: Sage Publications.

Simmins, H., and McCormack, B. (2007). Integrating Arts-Based Inquiry in Evaluation Methodology:

Opportunities and Challenges. Qualitative Inquiry 13(2): 292-311.

Stewart D W, Shamdasani P M., (1990). Focus groups. Theory and practice. London: Sage Publications.

Stewart K, Gill P, Treasure E, Chadwick B., (2006). Understanding about food among 6-11 year olds in South

Wales. Food Culture Society. 9: 317–333.

Taket A. 2010. In Liamputtong L (ed). Research methods in health: Foundations for evidence-based practice.

Oxford University Press: South Melbourne.

Weimer, J. (ed.), (1995). Research Techniques in Human Engineering. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall ISBN

0-13-097072-7

www.ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/evaluate/evaluate-community-interventions/design-observational-

system/main (Access Date: 01/06/2015)

www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_collection (Access Date: 25/05/2015)

www.evalued.bcu.ac.uk/tutorial/4c.htm (Access Date: 28/05/2015)

www.fao.org/docrep/w3241e/w3241e01.jpg

www.informationr.net/tdw/publ/papers/rm3.gif (Access Date: 02/06/2015)

www.mypeer.org.au/monitoring-evaluation/data-collection-methods (Access Date: 03/06/2015)

www.nature.com/bdj/journal/v204/n6/full/bdj.2008.192.html#B2 (Access Date: 10/06/2015)

www.qualres.org/HomeObse-3594.html (Access Date: 29/05/2015)

www.strath.ac.uk/aer/materials/3datacollection/unit5/advantagesanddisadvantagesofobservation/ (Access Date:

09/06/2015)

www.uic.edu/classes/bios/bios100/lectures/Sciencesteps.jpg (Access Date: 04/06/2015)

Documents

Techniques of Data Collection: The Procedure of Data Collection for Conducting a Research through Observation & Interview